I follow Catholic teaching on contraception. Ask me anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But NFP is not supposed to be used lightly, and there are many other situations that restrict spouses' access to one another (travel, long-term illness, stresses). And yet spouses are called to be faithful to one another.

Two questions:
Why is NFP acceptable, but other methods of contraception are not? Is there a biblical basis for this?

First question: NFP is not a "method of contraception," because it is in no way contraceptive. Contraception is the choice (by any means) to impede the procreative potential of a given act of sex. If you are "using NFP," you NEVER choose to impede the procreative potential of a sexual act. It is the difference between sterilizing yourself and recognizing God-given times of infertility.

Second question: Church teaching is found in encyclicals (Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae) and the Catechism, because Catholics accept the authority of the Church. But all of these teachings have a biblical basis. Christ Himself taught that men and women become "one flesh," and what God has joined, no man may put asunder (Mt 19:6). God created sex to be unitive and procreative, and it is not our place to separate sex from babies. Ephesians states that men are to love their wives as Christ loved the Church, and His love would never be deliberately sterilized. Genesis states we were created in the image and likeness of God, that His creation was "good," that we are "fruitful.". Children are referred to over and over again as great blessings.

Scripture is a love story. God is love, God loves us, we are to love as God loves. God chose to have sex be the way more humans, with eternal souls, come into being. The uncreated Love that is God touches the created world, between husband and wife, and a unique new person begins. Amazing.

The real question is, how can contracepted sex be biblical?

Is abstinence within marriage to avoid pregnancy licit?

Yes, if the (periodic or complete) abstinence is mutually agreed upon and is for grave reasons.

But even a couple who is not deliberately sterilizing particular sexual acts could still be violating their relationship with God and with each other through periodic or complete abstinence. We need to open our hearts in a very brave and profound way to see children as gifts, rather than burdens. It can be a real struggle.

Who the hell is saying that the use of contraceptives means you view children as burdens?? Do you not hear the judgment just dripping out of you? I'm simply amazed at religious people who can say such horribly judgmental stuff, all in the name of religion, and think it's OK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have a question I have always wanted to ask someone who is anti-birth control; forgive me if anyone has already asked it, but this thread has gotten rather long. Some of us who have ovarian cysts or other issues like endometriosis have been on birth control pills not only for the intended use, but also because they can help prevent further issues with those conditions. Let's suppose you were not going to be having sex with anyone; would you not feel like you could take oral contraception, even though not taking it could result in your developing numerous cysts which would result in pain and eventual surgeries?

This invokes the principle of double effect. You are not taking the Pill to contracept; you are taking it to heal your cysts. Even the Catholic institutions fighting the HHS mandate include therapeutic uses of the Pill as covered services. It would be the same if a mother had to have a hysterectomy for some medically indicated reason. The double effect would be healing an illness and rendering the woman infertile. But the intent was not to render her infertile, so it is not illicit.

So even a fertile, married woman can take the Pill, but the intent cannot be contraceptive.

[Anonymous]

My husband is infertile. Since our sex can NEVER result in procreation, what is the Church's position on it?

[Anonymous]

Feel kind of bad for you OP. This forum hates Catholics and even though you didn't form the religion, they are going to associate and blame you with everything they feel is wrong with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I respect anyone who is so faithful to their beliefs when these choices are so difficult to make, but I am glad I am Jewish and sex (within marriage) is for fun and procreation.

Word. Sorry, but I just don't get the whole Catholic guilt about sex thing. The only guilt I need to worry about it the guilt my mother gives me for not marrying that nice orthopedic surgeon from Boca Raton. Oy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a question I have always wanted to ask someone who is anti-birth control; forgive me if anyone has already asked it, but this thread has gotten rather long. Some of us who have ovarian cysts or other issues like endometriosis have been on birth control pills not only for the intended use, but also because they can help prevent further issues with those conditions. Let's suppose you were not going to be having sex with anyone; would you not feel like you could take oral contraception, even though not taking it could result in your developing numerous cysts which would result in pain and eventual surgeries?

This invokes the principle of double effect. You are not taking the Pill to contracept; you are taking it to heal your cysts. Even the Catholic institutions fighting the HHS mandate include therapeutic uses of the Pill as covered services. It would be the same if a mother had to have a hysterectomy for some medically indicated reason. The double effect would be healing an illness and rendering the woman infertile. But the intent was not to render her infertile, so it is not illicit.

So even a fertile, married woman can take the Pill, but the intent cannot be contraceptive.

PP here -- thanks so much for answering my question.

Another one -- If a woman has a chronic illness, one in which becoming her pregant would present serious risks to her health, maybe even death, is she still not 'allowed' to try to prevent pregancy? Even if the pregnancy could result in her already-born children being left motherless? How would she be able to have sex without worrying that it might subsequently lead to her demise?

Thanks in advance for answering. This is all fascinating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My catholic friend made a "deal with god" so that she could get her tubes tied. I wasn't aware that you could do this. However it seems to be a pretty slick option.

Haha---I just recently learned that my own mother also exercised this option after Baby #8. Long before I ever knew that she had her tubes tied, she had always portrayed Baby #8's birth as a life-threatening emergency (it wasn't---I work in healthcare and, knowing the details, can say this with absolute certainty)--she just needed to believe this to justify her decision in her own mind and to my father. Makes me nauseous when I hear my father rant about how it's unconstitutional for Catholic institutions to be "forced" to provide contraception. I don't want to betray my mother who confided in me but I just want to strangle him as he sits and soaks up stupid Fox News all day everyday. Oh how I would love to see the reaction on his face if I asked him if he was grateful that my mom had access to permanent contraception when they needed/wanted it. Oh what tangled webs we Catholic families weave!

Signed,
Very Liberal Catholic with one child and an IUD

[Anonymous]

Do you ever ask mothers of only children for advice? Mothers with less children than you (2+)k

[Anonymous]

Where exactly does the Bible prohibit contraception anyway? What is the biblical basis?

[Anonymous]

Do you believe infertility is gods will or a treatable medical condition. What do you think of childless couples or families with one child?

[Anonymous]

I didn't read all 7 pages. I am almost positive that this is the OP of "Why don't you believe in God?". I went around and around and around with her trying to get answers and have a discussion. It was more of a challenge than it was worth. She didn't really care why we didn't believe in god, only seemed to care about blathering on about natural law, perfect universe, unmoved mover, blah, blah.

Have fun with this poster. Peace out!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a question I have always wanted to ask someone who is anti-birth control; forgive me if anyone has already asked it, but this thread has gotten rather long. Some of us who have ovarian cysts or other issues like endometriosis have been on birth control pills not only for the intended use, but also because they can help prevent further issues with those conditions. Let's suppose you were not going to be having sex with anyone; would you not feel like you could take oral contraception, even though not taking it could result in your developing numerous cysts which would result in pain and eventual surgeries?

This invokes the principle of double effect. You are not taking the Pill to contracept; you are taking it to heal your cysts. Even the Catholic institutions fighting the HHS mandate include therapeutic uses of the Pill as covered services. It would be the same if a mother had to have a hysterectomy for some medically indicated reason. The double effect would be healing an illness and rendering the woman infertile. But the intent was not to render her infertile, so it is not illicit.

So even a fertile, married woman can take the Pill, but the intent cannot be contraceptive.

PP here -- thanks so much for answering my question.

Another one -- If a woman has a chronic illness, one in which becoming her pregant would present serious risks to her health, maybe even death, is she still not 'allowed' to try to prevent pregancy? Even if the pregnancy could result in her already-born children being left motherless? How would she be able to have sex without worrying that it might subsequently lead to her demise?

Thanks in advance for answering. This is all fascinating.

Pope Pius XI directly addressed this in Casti Connubii. A mother's health (physical, emotional, mental) can be a serious reason to avoid pregnancy, without doubt. But the way in which pregnancy is avoided must still respect the meaning of sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Feel kind of bad for you OP. This forum hates Catholics and even though you didn't form the religion, they are going to associate and blame you with everything they feel is wrong with it.

She opened the door, and some of us are walking through it. She's answering so little that I agree with PP - waste of time.

[Anonymous]

So you can take birth control to control your acne, or ovarian cysts, or period cramps, but you can't take birth control to prevent a pregnancy that would kill you. Got it? Respect the sex act.

You can practice abstinence for years expressly so that you don't get pregnant thereby eliminating both the procreative and unitive aspects of sex in marriage, but you can't have sex with birth control because that separates the unitive and procreative parts of sex (even though in both cases you are neither open to life, nor experiencing the unitive and procreative aspects of sex). In both cases you prevent pregnancy but only one is okay. Got it?

And all this comes from celibate male priests.

COME ON they just want to guilt you into having (sorry, soften your heart) unprotected sex that results in pregnancy. If you don't think birth control takes away from the sexual experience you are having with your spouse (who is already emotionally, financially, and physically committed to you and with whom you most likely do already share children) then pull out and don't even think twice. And when we all meet St. Peter at the pearly gates the male priests can discuss their pedophilia while you bring up your birth control.

[Anonymous]

I am pregnant with my fourth child. My oldest just turned six. Between kids, we used birth control, but even with a birth control method I was often worried that I may become pregnant when I didn't want to be. We had far less sex because of it, and I know that after this baby is born (my absolute last) I will be completely averse to having sex with my husband until he has a vasectomy.

I love and value my children and view them as an immense blessing and the best part of who I am. But I don't have the capacity to have more than four. And I need to have sex with my husband to maintain a healthy marriage.

So OP - what am I supposed to do under your set of rules? I am highly fertile and get pregnant immediately when we stop birth control - and two of my pregnancies were conceived during times that should by most measures have been my "God given naturally infertile" times. So - birth control and healthy marriage, or abstinence and unhealthy marriage? Which am I supposed to choose?